# Mich. Senate Passes Ban.



## Cigarmark (Apr 2, 2007)

*State Senate approves public smoking ban*

BY CHRIS CHRISTOFF • FREE PRESS LANSING BUREAU • May 8, 2008
LANSING -- The state Senate voted today to ban smoking in public places including restaurants and bars, sending the issue back to the House, which has passed a similar bill.

The Senate vote puts a statewide smoking ban on the verge of final approval and a victory for antismoking advocates who have lobbied for years to ban smoking in public places.
The measure passed on a 25-12 vote. Unlike a similar House bill that passed, the Senate version would extend the smoking ban to casinos and bingo halls.

That could be an issue in the House, where Detroit's casinos had lobbied hard for an exemption to any smoking ban.

The Senate version would not affect American Indian casinos. Several attempts to ban smoking at Indian casinos failed, as opponents cited the sovereignty of Indian tribes and their businesses.

Supporters of the smoking ban, led by Sen. Ray Basham, D-Taylor, framed the bill as a health issue for workers in bars and restaurants who are exposed to secondhand smoke.

Sen. Bruce Patterson, R-Canton Township, echoed some other Republicans, saying he once opposed a statewide smoking ban but had changed his mind because of a second report by the U.S. Surgeon General that found secondhand smoke to be a public health hazard.

"I'm now on the right side of the issue," Patterson said.


----------



## Little General (Jan 12, 2008)

That sucks....


----------



## olotti (Jan 20, 2006)

As if we don't have enough problems in this hell hole of a state. Sure this is going to make everything alll better.


----------



## Cigarmark (Apr 2, 2007)

From what I was told by the Camacho rep. this would even include B&M's!


----------



## jagmqt (Feb 22, 2007)

This is a done deal...that sucks...the only issue is how fast and any last minute riders...:BS

It's back in the House for an argument over a casino exception...I'll try to find some staffers or Rep.s tonight to see if there are any other excpetions in the works...

jag

Edit: MI House Bill 4163 (2007)...there is a cigar bar and shop exception (currently) but it's pretty strict...

You can see the bill at www.michiganlegislature.org

The front page of the site has a "Bill Search" feature...

jag


----------



## BengalMan (Aug 13, 2007)

The bill that passed the House five months ago would have exempted casinos, bingo halls, horse tracks, cigar bars and smoke shops from the ban. The Senate stripped those provisions in favor of banning smoking in all workplaces -- though American Indian casinos likely would be exempt because many state laws don't apply there because of tribal sovereignty. "

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-mi-smokingban,0,371410.story

I was with Tom when the news hit and needless to say him and I were pounding the phones. Doesn't look good though.....


----------



## tallypig (Apr 26, 2008)

Geez-and I thought all of the idiots were here in the Florida Legislature.... Good luck guys.


----------



## Silky01 (Jul 16, 2007)

Cigarmark said:


> Sen. Bruce Patterson, R-Canton Township, echoed some other Republicans, saying he once opposed a statewide smoking ban but had changed his mind because of a second report by the U.S. Surgeon General that found *secondhand smoke *to be a public health hazard.
> 
> "I'm now on the right side of the issue," Patterson said.


cough:BS:BS:BS:BScough


----------



## DETROITPHA357 (Jul 8, 2006)

This is going to hurt us more then they realize but the H#LL with them and there :BS I got a few private places were we would still be able to get together and do what we do. This is not good for us at all

Any1ever charter a SpaceShip for a out of this world herf


----------



## bmwe28m5 (Sep 14, 2007)

Michigan is a complete mess, government wise. Any Michiganders remember the proposal to give iPods to all school children? Crazyness. At least Michigan has one of the most stringent welfare programs in the nation, thanks to Engler. 


I know my local B&M is way over-taxed on so many different levels, I dont know how he keeps from going insolvent.


----------



## hk3 (Jan 29, 2008)

Geezow... ....like the damn 32% tobacco tax on top of the 6% sales tax isn't bad enough.


----------



## sailchaser (Jun 16, 2007)

Why don't they Ban orange barrels instead :bn


they just showed the smoking ban on the news


----------



## ScottishSmoker (Feb 11, 2007)

Again...why do people vote Democrat?


----------



## z3ro (May 8, 2008)

This is how it is in AZ now. It sucks, i used to love to go to the local pool hall, drink a beer, shoot some pool, and smoke. And now i cant do that. I cant even smoke in a bar. effin sh1ttie


----------



## Thillium (Jan 14, 2008)

McDonalds is extremely bad for your health to...I don't see them banning that anytime soon....



:BS:BS:BS:BS


----------



## Jbailey (Nov 9, 2006)

Thillium said:


> McDonalds is extremely bad for your health to...I don't see them banning that anytime soon....
> 
> :BS:BS:BS:BS


I'm sure thats next after they get done with tobacco!


----------



## Cigarmark (Apr 2, 2007)

ScottishSmoker said:


> Again...why do people vote Democrat?


While I agree with this question generally, this time it was the republican lead Senate that did this. The speaker of the house is generally against smoking bans. I believe that both parties are the same anymore........scumbags!


----------



## borndead1 (Oct 21, 2006)

ScottishSmoker said:


> Again...why do people vote Democrat?


Sen. Bruce Patterson, *R-Canton Township, echoed some other Republicans*, saying he once opposed a statewide smoking ban but had changed his mind because of a second report by the U.S. Surgeon General that found secondhand smoke to be a public health hazard.

"I'm now on the right side of the issue," Patterson said.

Doesn't matter any more, my friend. The only difference is the rhetoric they vomit out of their mouths to get elected. Welcome to the 1 party system.


----------



## The Professor (Jul 20, 2006)

ScottishSmoker said:


> Again...why do people vote Democrat?


Again -- why do people insist on partisan bickering when TFA clearly states it's bipartisan?


----------



## BlueHavanaII (Feb 2, 2007)

From IPCPR...

Michigan: Smoking Ban Bill Gains Momentum 
*Exemptions for Retail Tobacco Shops Stripped by Senate *

The Michigan Legislature is currently considering House Bill 4163, legislation that, if approved and signed by the governor, would ban smoking throughout the state. *The bill passed the House and was then taken up in the Senate where ALL EXEMPTIONS were stripped--including the exemption for retail tobacco shops. *

The bill goes back to the House for a new vote. We have only a matter of a few days to contact all state representatives to urge them to exempt retail tobacco shops. Take Action NOW! Share this with your customers-NOW!


----------



## dccraft (Apr 7, 2008)

ScottishSmoker said:


> Again...why do people vote Democrat?


:tpd: This will get us nowhere in a hurry.


----------



## chriscbs (Mar 1, 2008)

ScottishSmoker said:


> Again...why do people vote Democrat?


I'll throw in a quiet "amen," but I also agree ... democrat or republican, it's obvious that we're electing *idiots*.

Who's going to start working on a centrally-located Metro Detroit private smoking club?


----------



## smokehouse (Jan 31, 2007)

chriscbs said:


> I'll throw in a quiet "amen," but I also agree ... democrat or republican, it's obvious that we're electing *idiots*.
> 
> Who's going to start working on a centrally-located Metro Detroit private smoking club?


I agree whats the difference if your a republican or a democrat. They are both idiots. Look at how things are now. The economy is in the toliet.


----------



## Jbailey (Nov 9, 2006)

Looks like only one Democrats voted no: Jim Barcia of Bay City.
There were a lot of Republicans voting no, just not enough.


----------



## chippewastud79 (Sep 18, 2007)

Particularly with the weather, this is going to put a huge damper on smoking for about 9 months out of the year while its snowing. :hn


----------



## Old Sailor (Jul 27, 2006)

DETROITPHA357 said:


> This is going to hurt us more then they realize but the H#LL with them and there :BS I got a few private places were we would still be able to get together and do what we do. This is not good for us at all
> 
> Any1ever charter a SpaceShip for a out of this world herf


----------



## DETROITPHA357 (Jul 8, 2006)

Old Sailor said:


>


Dont worrie Dave I already got the hook up if it happens. Several places thats cool with it and will allow us to do our thing. Private space...:tu


----------



## BigDilly (May 4, 2008)

Every ounce of *POWER* they _gain_ is a *POUND* of *FREEDOM*we _lose__._


----------



## Old Sailor (Jul 27, 2006)

DETROITPHA357 said:


> Dont worrie Dave I already got the hook up if it happens. Several places thats cool with it and will allow us to do our thing. Private space...:tu


:tu:tu


----------



## chriscbs (Mar 1, 2008)

The Bosco in Ferndale has an outdoor patio area that is an _incredible _place to enjoy a drink in the summer.

..... and I'll never go there again. An Article by the Owner in the Detroit Free Press


----------



## 357 (May 3, 2007)

BigDilly said:


> Every ounce of *POWER* they _gain_ is a *POUND* of *FREEDOM*we _lose__._


You're absolutely right. I'm crafting a letter and a list of michigan legislators. I'll post it tomorrow. That way everyone can copy and paste it and send a copy.

Mike


----------



## jagmqt (Feb 22, 2007)

Chances are this bill is going to die...We'll know tomorrow...or at least by the end of session Thursday.

If the House amends the bill and sends it back to the Senate, the Senate won't take it up again...and the Senate won't allow any exceptions, so if the Conference Committee puts an exception for Detroit casinos, the Senate won't pass it...


jag


----------



## 357 (May 3, 2007)

jagmqt said:


> Chances are this bill is going to die...We'll know tomorrow...or at least by the end of session Thursday.
> 
> If the House amends the bill and sends it back to the Senate, the Senate won't take it up again...and the Senate won't allow any exceptions, so if the Conference Committee puts an exception for Detroit casinos, the Senate won't pass it...
> 
> jag


Sounds like you have some inside info. I hope you're right. Although, it can't hurt to let your reps know how you feel.


----------



## Jbailey (Nov 9, 2006)

I know the Democrat Rep. for Bay City Jim Barcia is working hard for us smokers. Hes been talking with the shop owner Tim about it.

Crossing fingers here.


----------



## 357 (May 3, 2007)

I am writing to ask you to vote *AGAINST* the smoking ban, House Bill 4163 (2007). While the bill has good intent, it tramples on the rights of all property owners. Worse yet is that the good intent is based on false pretenses.

The Environmental Protection Agency, in its landmark 1993 study warned that secondhand smoke is a carcinogen that annually causes thousands of deaths from lung cancer.

However, five years after the study was released, a federal judge lambasted the EPA for "cherry picking" the data, excluding studies that "demonstrated no association between ETS (environmental tobacco smoke) and cancer."

And two years before that, the American Heart Association journal, Circulation, reported no increase in coronary heart disease associated with secondhand smoke "at work or in other settings."

So what? Maybe secondhand smoke doesn't kill people, but how about the harm to those with asthma, respiratory infections or eye allergies?

Well, listen to Jane Gravelle of the Congressional Research Service, testifying before Congress in 1994: "The statistical evidence does not appear to support a conclusion that there are substantial health effects from passive smoking."

Some argue that a ban is necessary to protect the rights of nonsmokers to be in smoke-free environments. But ban proponents misunderstand the nature of rights in a free society.

I have a right to smoke, and I also have a right not to smoke. But I only have those rights when I'm on my own property. When I voluntarily walk into someone else's bar or restaurant, my right to smoke or not to smoke is no longer an issue, because I'm on his property, not mine. If a bar owner chooses to allow smoking on his property, that's his choice. He has every right to allow smoking, just as he has every right to serve apple pie.

A smoking ban is an attack on freedom and an attack on property rights. Proponents of the ban want government to grant them the power to walk onto someone else's property and have things exactly the way they want them. And that means sending the police after business owners who do not bend to their will. Property owners who refuse to comply will risk fines and jail time.

Some wish to talk about the health of workers exposed to secondhand smoke, and the scientific research that has attempted-in vain-to find a link between environmental tobacco smoke and cancer. But even if environmental tobacco smoke were proven to cause substantial health risks, there would be no cause to regulate it in private establishments. When you walk into a smoky restaurant or bar, you can tell immediately that smoke is present, and you can choose to stay or leave. For comparison, it is infinitely more difficult to detect the presence of salmonella in a chicken sandwich, so a stronger case can be made for regulating the cleanliness of restaurant kitchens.

If you are looking for a smoke-free restaurant, you are in luck. Almost all restaurants nowadays choose to have separate smoking and nonsmoking sections, if they allow smoking at all. That is the product of the free market: Over the last 40 years, as smoking has declined in America, nonsmokers have demanded smoke-free restaurants, and business owners have supplied them.

The war on tobacco started with a proven truth: primary smoke is a high-risk factor for lung cancer, bronchitis and emphysema. But that fact has mushroomed into an assortment of untruths, eroding the credibility of government agencies and the rule of law.

Smoking bans are really about unrestrained government, an anti-tobacco crusade against thousands of private businesses and millions of smokers without grounding in fairness or common sense, and without an appreciation for the principles that nourish a free society.

Please take this into consideration before voting on HB 4163 (2007)

Mike ******
##### ***** Street
Roseville, MI 48066


----------



## 357 (May 3, 2007)

I wrote a little of that, and borrowed from these two links.

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3155.html

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8268

Here's a list of Michigan Legislators...

[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected]

You can copy and paste that into your e-mail (web or client) and send it. You may have to split it in two however, since Yahoo only allows so many recipients at a time. Also, *don't paste them all in the the TO column. Put one in the TO, and the rest in the BCC.* That way it doesn't look like junkmail to them.

Please send them something. Even the guys here from out of state. Any little bit helps.

Mike


----------



## jamesb3 (Jan 29, 2008)

Well as of today the smoking ban has been put on hold at least for now. The House did not vote on the bill as some would like to see Bars and Casinos given exemptions on the bill. So time will tell. It's sure to come up for vote in one version or another soon enough. Could very well be some time after the upcoming elections.


----------



## borndead1 (Oct 21, 2006)

I emailed a bunch of House members yesterday and read about 10 of the "responses". Only 1 was obviously for the ban, another used very vague language (a sign that they disagree with you) and all the others were against it. 


Nice of the bastids to let THE VOTERS decide this issue isn't it?  

Why not put it on the ballot in November?


----------



## Sgt. Pepper (Apr 12, 2008)

Thillium said:


> McDonalds is extremely bad for your health to...I don't see them banning that anytime soon....
> 
> :BS:BS:BS:BS


Wait on it.........


----------

